Biblical Solution to Spousal Abuse

I'll drop it. You obviously believe that the victim should have no right to decide if the abuse should be reported or not.

 

Yes, that is unfortunate.

 

tamborine lady,

This is faulty logic. It is very possible that an abusive man is pleased to have someone to beat upon.

Now to what I was going to post when I came on line:

I've decided it would be more helpful to clarify what this thread is about as opposed to going around in circles, so here is my attempt:

It seems to me that Christians basically fall into one of 4 categories on this subject:

1->There are those Christians who believe that God has preserved a special place in hell for those who at one point abuse their spouses (read wives). There should be no consideration given to these evil people and that any man who has ever struck his wife, for any reason at all, should be thrown in jail to rot until he dies and gets sent to hell.

2->Then there is another group of Christians that is not as extreme but still believes in their hearts that there is little to no hope of an abuser changing his stripes, therefore the only reasonable thing to do is to teach women to dump their abusive husbands and escape while they still can. Cut and run is the only viable solution that ensures the safety of women.

3->There is another group of Christians that believes abusers are human and that abuse is a form of sin that needs to be dealt with. There is hope for those who abuse their spouses (once again read wives) and that we should work to cure the problem instead of simply punishing the abuser. Although an abuser may be arrested at one point for his actions, this is no solution. The best solution is to fix the situation and exactly what steps need to be taken should be decided on a case by case basis.

4->There is still another group that believes the husband can behave however he wishes toward his family. The wife simply needs to accept this as a part of life and try to do better so that she doesn’t get beat.

It seems to me that those who fall into categories 1&4 are simply hateful people who have a totally screwed up view of reality. There is no possible way to communicate with these people. If such people post their views, all we can say is: “I see what you believe”

Those who have a realistic view of the situation fall into categories 2&3. I fall into category 3. It seems to me that so far those who disagree with me fall into category 2 with one or two possibly falling into category 1.

If we are to look at some of the difficult verses of the Bible and take them at face value, then category 3 is the view most consistent with the Bible. If we overlook certain verses and concentrate on verses that tell us to obey the laws of the land, then category 2 is the most consistent.

What I’m trying to deal with in this thread is how to apply the difficult scriptures properly so that those in category 4 can’t claim to be the only ones who choose to follow the Bible instead of the wisdom of man.

Instead, most of what I’ve had to deal with is people from categories 1 and 2 who feel it is their obligation to shout down any attempt to do anything but blame the abuser and tell women they must cut and run.

 

I'm not twisting your words. I simply stated why he could still be pleased to live with her. You simply wish to close your eyes to this.

Perfectly logical as long as you don't mind twisting scripture to fit what you believe about the issue.

Yes, and this the right thing to do in certain situations. I just don't believe it is the right thing to do in all situations. Each case is different that is why I do not believe in a one size fits all approach.

 

Just to clarify why I say you are twisting scripture:

Paul clearly meant as long as the non-Christian spouse wants to stay married. Any other interpretation based on word play is simply twisting scripture.

 

Really? What have I said?

I see it saying this: It is best if a woman stays with her husband. But if the wife is not able to do this then she can leave, but she is not to divorce.


Music4him said:If a man isn't doing what the Lord tells him to do evidently its wrong....right?

To which I replied: Of course.

I am with Jim when it comes to what a perfect person should do. The problem is, there aren't too many people who are actually perfect when it comes to this matter. As a matter of fact, I'd say there are very very few...I'm sorry, but I do not believe people should be forced into a position of trying to be perfect, when God does allow the window.

If the desire is to save the marriage, then I do not know if throwing the guy in jail is the best solution. How difficult is it to find a job when one has a record? How much resentment is added on when the wife has the husband arrested?

I know these are not concerns if the wife simply wants out. But I believe these are valid concerns if the desire is to heal the screwed up union. I believe everyone would agree that when there is abuse, there is a screwed up union. One part of the body simply does not naturally attack the other half.

You said: A man who beats his wife does not beat her to persecute her for her faith in Jesus Christ. He beats her because he is an unrestrained bully. To equate the two is absurd.

To which I replied; I'm not sure you are correct here. If the wife hangs around in attempt to save her husband from damnation, then it could be argued that she was being beaten for her faith in Jesus Christ. My wife was telling me about Reba McEntire's sister who did hang around and her husband did come around and no longer abuses her. I'm sure that you find this example ridiculous, but that does not mean it could never happen. It took 15 years, but it did happen.

Yes, Jesus asked the one without sin to cast the first stone. Perhaps some here should apply this to those who commit the sin of abuse. I know it isn't popular, but it wasn't popular for Christ to stand up for the adultress either.

Can you find one post where I said that a man has the right to treat his wife however he sees fit and that the wife simply needs to get used to it.

Let's see what else I've said in in response to this from tamborine lady:So, in a perfect world, she should leave him till he straightens up, and if he doesn't, then live alone and raise the kids.

To which I replied: Yes, and this the right thing to do in certain situations. I just don't believe it is the right thing to do in all situations. Each case is different that is why I do not believe in a one size fits all approach.

I never said anyone in this thread believed this. I said that I thought a couple might, but that is not the same.

Evidently you have not been reading the solution that Dina prescribed. When that is the only solution given, it is easily understood to be the solution.

 

continued...

On the contrary, I said that most women should not.

Why do you continue to create strawmen to knock down? I've already explained this, but I'll quote what I said again:

If the wife hangs around in attempt to save her husband from damnation, then it could be argued that she was being beaten for her faith in Jesus Christ. My wife was telling me about Reba McEntire's sister who did hang around and her husband did come around and no longer abuses her. I'm sure that you find this example ridiculous, but that does not mean it could never happen. It took 15 years, but it did happen.

 

continued...

This just goes to show that you haven't been hearing what I was saying. Hopefully this post has opened your ears.

When did I ever say that abuse was not a sin and that the abuser should not be made aware of his error?

 

Hate once again clearly has to do with dislike, as in I don't like you anymore, therefore I want to divorce you. And to answer your question, yes even with your twisting of the term, the abuser would still have the say so.